Section 69 BNS: Breach of Promise to Marry Due to Unavoidable Circumstances Is Not Rape, Says SC

The Supreme Court has held that a consensual relationship that began through a digital platform does not amount to a deceitful promise to marry merely because the man later refused to marry due to opposition from his family.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while quashing an FIR registered against Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [previously prosecuted under a combined reading of Section 375 (Rape) and Section 90 (Consent given under a misconception of fact) of the IPC].

When does a promise to marry become a criminal offence under Section 69 BNS?

The Supreme Court said Section 69 BNS penalises sexual relations with a woman obtained through “deceitful means” or by making a promise to marry “without any intention of fulfilling the same”.

The Bench explained that for the provision to apply, the promise must have been made with the intention, from the very beginning, that it would never be fulfilled. A subsequent failure to marry, by itself, does not establish such deceitful conduct.

Court also emphasized that a person may make a genuine promise to marry but later be unable to do so because of unavoidable circumstances or external family pressure. Such a situation, it said, cannot automatically be treated as an initial fraudulent intention to deceive.

What did the woman allege?

The appellant had challenged a Gujarat High Court order refusing to quash the FIR registered at Sayajigunj Police Station, Vadodara City, on May 20, 2025.

According to the complaint, the appellant and the woman came into contact through a digital platform and their friendship later developed into a love affair. The woman alleged that the appellant entered into physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her, but later backed out after saying that his mother was not in favour of the marriage.

The High Court, while refusing to quash the FIR, had relied on the Supreme Court's 2013 judgment in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana.

What did the Supreme Court say about a false promise to marry?

The Bench referred to the principles laid down in Deepak Gulati, where the Supreme Court had held that there must be sufficient evidence to show that, at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever of keeping the promise to marry.

The 2013 judgment had also recognized that a person who genuinely intended to marry may later be unable to do so because of unavoidable circumstances.

“Failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date” does not always amount to a “misconception of fact”, Court had held. For a misconception of fact to arise, the fact must have an immediate relevance.

The Supreme Court had further held that Section 90 of the IPC cannot be used to automatically fasten criminal liability on a person unless the court is satisfied that he had never intended to marry the woman from the very beginning.

How does Section 69 BNS differ from the earlier IPC position?

The Bench explained that under the IPC, a false promise of marriage in cases involving rape was examined under Section 375 read with Section 90.

In such cases, the question was whether the woman's consent was tainted because she had been led to believe that the promise of marriage would be fulfilled, when the man had no intention of fulfilling it even when he made the promise.

The BNS, however, has introduced a separate offence under Section 69 dealing specifically with fraudulent or deceitful conduct involving a promise to marry.

The Bench said the words used in Section 69 — “deceitful means or by making a promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same” — retain the same requirement: the promise must have been made with an intention that it would never be fulfilled.

Why did the Supreme Court find the relationship consensual?

The Bench noted that the facts recorded by the High Court showed that the appellant and the complainant had first met through a digital platform, after which their friendship developed into a relationship.

The complaint stated that the appellant expressed his desire to marry the complainant when they met physically for the first time. The complainant thereafter agreed to have sexual relations with him. The first such instance was alleged to have taken place on February 12, 2024. She was also stated to have stayed with the appellant at a hotel for two days in April 2024.

The Supreme Court said the statements in the complaint “clearly indicate a consensual relationship” and did not show that the appellant had used deceitful means to induce the complainant into having sexual intercourse.

The Bench particularly noted that the complaint did not state that the complainant had agreed to the physical relationship only because of a promise of marriage. Instead, it specifically stated that she “succumbed to the appellant’s entreaties” when they first met.

Court therefore said it was unable to find any deceitful conduct merely because the appellant had communicated his desire to marry her.

The Bench further observed that the allegation itself was that the appellant later refused to marry the complainant because his mother did not permit the marriage.

“In any event, the very complaint is that the appellant refused to marry her later, because his mother did not permit it, which indicates that the promise was made with all good intention, if at all it was made,” the Bench said.

Holding that there was no reason to allow the criminal proceedings to continue, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR.

Case Title: Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyan Vs The State of Gujarat & Anr

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: September 07, 2026